Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Has Pathfinder given up on being fantasy?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

The peasant farmer is probably the untrained guy whose making significantly less per month. A trained individual can easily have modifiers of +4, +6, or even higher. The farmer I gave was modest. He and his family were average folk, his children were below average for being children. He had no Wisdom bonus, his wife had no Intelligence bonus, or anything of the sort. For the most part they were fairly uneducated.

Meanwhile a commoner with a 13 Intelligence, Craft (Jewelry), 1 rank, +4 class skill, skill focus (Craft {Jewelry}), and a set of masterwork tools will be making significantly more money. About 10 gp per week, or 30 gp to the good per month. He alone makes almost the same amount of money per week than the whole family that I mentioned working together.

The idea that commoners make a silver piece a day is...bizarre. Seriously it's bizarre. The cost of living for a poor lifestyle is 3 gold pieces per month. At 1 silver piece a day you're destitute. You're not a struggling family. You're a homeless family.

Actually, other than your boosts to his skill, the farmer and the jeweler will make exactly the same: half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.

Give a farmer a 13 wisdom, Profession(Farmer), 1 rank, +4 class skill. skill focus (Profession {Farming}) and a set of masterwork tools and he'll make the same.

It's all strictly on your skill. Whether you're an architect, a porter or a barrister, you make half the result of your skill check every week. An incredibly classless and meritocratic society. The same amount where ever you are in the world, regardless of local supply or demand.

You can pretend jewelers make more by giving them more skill points than farmers, but there's nothing in the rules that says your average jeweler has more skill than your average farmer.

that's not a peasant farmer anymore. that is a more skilled farmer who works for the landlord directly.

Who knows? That's the thing. An actual farmer's income is probably related more directly to the amount of land he has available, but that isn't accounted for. You'd do better to buy a masterwork hoe than more land.

It's silly to look too closely at it. That's my point. No matter what you do, you make the same amount if you have the same skill. Barrister or porter. Potter or goldsmith. Half your skill check in gold every week.
You can rationalize it however you want.


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

The peasant farmer is probably the untrained guy whose making significantly less per month. A trained individual can easily have modifiers of +4, +6, or even higher. The farmer I gave was modest. He and his family were average folk, his children were below average for being children. He had no Wisdom bonus, his wife had no Intelligence bonus, or anything of the sort. For the most part they were fairly uneducated.

Meanwhile a commoner with a 13 Intelligence, Craft (Jewelry), 1 rank, +4 class skill, skill focus (Craft {Jewelry}), and a set of masterwork tools will be making significantly more money. About 10 gp per week, or 30 gp to the good per month. He alone makes almost the same amount of money per week than the whole family that I mentioned working together.

The idea that commoners make a silver piece a day is...bizarre. Seriously it's bizarre. The cost of living for a poor lifestyle is 3 gold pieces per month. At 1 silver piece a day you're destitute. You're not a struggling family. You're a homeless family.

Actually, other than your boosts to his skill, the farmer and the jeweler will make exactly the same: half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.

Give a farmer a 13 wisdom, Profession(Farmer), 1 rank, +4 class skill. skill focus (Profession {Farming}) and a set of masterwork tools and he'll make the same.

It's all strictly on your skill. Whether you're an architect, a porter or a barrister, you make half the result of your skill check every week. An incredibly classless and meritocratic society. The same amount where ever you are in the world, regardless of local supply or demand.

You can pretend jewelers make more by giving them more skill points than farmers, but there's nothing in the rules that says your average jeweler has more skill than your average farmer.

Ah but you see I pointed that out. I said average folks, versus a superior artisan. The point of the Craft and Profession skills is not how much your individual services are worth, but how well you ply your trade. For example, a Farmer with a +10 Profession (Farmer) skill will get significantly more money out of the same resources than someone with a +2. This can represent many things.

1) He could be better at negotiating better prices for his stock.
2) He could have more tricks to grow or produce better crop yields using the same land (such as implementing good crop rotation, knowing the perfect ways to plant, or how to set up simple irrigation systems or maximize exposure in sun vs shade for different crops).
3) He could be better at taking care of livestock and has fewer deaths and sickness cutting into his profits.
4) He could be more well rounded and has increased his efficiency so that he has a solid and steady income year 'round by well managing not only high-income crops but also also productivity of eggs, milk, and smart trading (buying cows when they're cheap, selling them when they are high) and so forth.

The end result however is the same. You make a certain amount of income based on your skill result. That is the abstraction. Based on his ability, skill, and know-how, a farmer with a +10 check will make roughly the same amount of money over the course of the year as a jeweler with a +10 check.

But that's just the thing. The jeweler might be conducting his business much differently (after all it is not farming) and he may only make one or two major transactions per month, while selling small baubles to the common folks more regularly. His skill may represent how much he has available on hand, his ability to play the markets, and so forth. Again, because it is an abstraction.

Trying to base the system off actual supply and demand on the minute levels would be a nightmare. Seriously, I never, ever, ever want to see a time where I have to figure out the going rate of silk vs wheat vs iron vs the skill modifiers times the cost of acre divided by the number of laborers this month to determine what the going rate of a sword is. Oh my god, no. I am more than perfectly happy with it remaining an abstraction, and simply adding certain things as needed.

For example, if I want a nation that is suffering from no middle class I'll invent some reason why they are suffering so. Perhaps they are being taxed much more heavily than others, creating a powerful upper class with far more wealth than normal but peasants who can only make ends meet at each month. Or we can apply a penalty to the entire nation based on a crisis (such as horrible weather) or pull a Baldur's Gate and have a specific and notable shortage of something like Iron. These would be things that stand out as being beyond the norm.

A nation that has been at war for a long time may have additional taxes to fund that war. If the average cost of living for a person is 10 gp a month, under heavy taxation it may be 15 gp per month, or perhaps more. Suddenly you're citizens are pressed much more tightly than normal, and your government or authority is generating an extra 5 gold pieces per person per household to fund their *insert project here*.


Ashiel wrote:

The idea that commoners make a silver piece a day is...bizarre. Seriously it's bizarre. The cost of living for a poor lifestyle is 3 gold pieces per month. At 1 silver piece a day you're destitute. You're not a struggling family. You're a homeless family.

I disagree. The way I read it, untrained workers work 30 days a month, which nets them their 3gp. Remember, medieval labourers didn't have weekends... So that puts them firmly in the "poor" lifestyle bracket.

Contributor

thejeff wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I guess Arthur, Cu Chulain, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, and all the others didn't do the job.
For hero templates sure...but how to write a fantasy story? The modern fantasy story really does have it's roots in tolkien.
Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber would like to have a few words with you.
Tolkien isn't the only source, but he's certainly a major one.

The modern fantasy story, where you specifically make up an alternate reality to set it in--as opposed to placing it in an established mythological setting, such as fairyland or King Arthur's Court--goes back to William Morris and his novel The Story of the Glittering Plain. His work had a big influence on C.S. Lewis especially. One of Morris's novels was The Wood Beyond the World--I've got a first edition here on my shelf (popular, not Kelmscott)--and there's an obvious homage to it in Lewis's The Magician's Nephew with "the wood between the worlds."


Pathfinder's economy is shown to be b0rked.

Film at 11.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:


Or may not exist at all - there are 0 magical swords in the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard.

The Phoenix on the Sword

Also, "The Devil In Iron" has a magic dagger.


littlehewy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

The idea that commoners make a silver piece a day is...bizarre. Seriously it's bizarre. The cost of living for a poor lifestyle is 3 gold pieces per month. At 1 silver piece a day you're destitute. You're not a struggling family. You're a homeless family.

I disagree. The way I read it, untrained workers work 30 days a month, which nets them their 3gp. Remember, medieval labourers didn't have weekends... So that puts them firmly in the "poor" lifestyle bracket.

But then they can just default to crafting something and earning stuff that way. And note that the cost of living we're talking about is an average one. Poor people are not the norm, average is. And we're talking about a family. Unless we're assuming children make the same amount of money as an adult does (which may be the case since your bonus in an untrained profession check appears irrelevant) then everyone would starve at the first moment anything goes wrong.

Which is kind of my point. That's not average, that's poor. And if for any reason what so ever that even so much as a single days work be missed then the whole household fails to make ends meet and becomes homeless. That is exceptionally poor. That's welfare in America poor. Hell, welfare in America isn't even that poor. That's poorer than working a McJob as your primary source of income.

And it's not the average. And once again due to the way the game works, you could just say "F-this, I'm going to craft spoons". :P

EDIT: Then there's a wonder exactly how you have a commoner that can't ply a profession or craft. Unless for some reason your average commoner has put none of their skill points in their class skills, or who have intentionally avoided Craft or Profession or Handle Animal, then it's hard to imagine that said average commoner is all that poor off. About all they have is Craft and Profession and Handle Animal. All skills that would make it very easy to live an average lifestyle.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I swear to god, I will turn this forum around and head back to WoTC if you kids don't stop squabbling over this.


Ashiel wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

The idea that commoners make a silver piece a day is...bizarre. Seriously it's bizarre. The cost of living for a poor lifestyle is 3 gold pieces per month. At 1 silver piece a day you're destitute. You're not a struggling family. You're a homeless family.

I disagree. The way I read it, untrained workers work 30 days a month, which nets them their 3gp. Remember, medieval labourers didn't have weekends... So that puts them firmly in the "poor" lifestyle bracket.

But then they can just default to crafting something and earning stuff that way. And note that the cost of living we're talking about is an average one. Poor people are not the norm, average is. And we're talking about a family. Unless we're assuming children make the same amount of money as an adult does (which may be the case since your bonus in an untrained profession check appears irrelevant) then everyone would starve at the first moment anything goes wrong.

Which is kind of my point. That's not average, that's poor. And if for any reason what so ever that even so much as a single days work be missed then the whole household fails to make ends meet and becomes homeless. That is exceptionally poor. That's welfare in America poor. Hell, welfare in America isn't even that poor. That's poorer than working a McJob as your primary source of income.

And it's not the average. And once again due to the way the game works, you could just say "F-this, I'm going to craft spoons". :P

EDIT: Then there's a wonder exactly how you have a commoner that can't ply a profession or craft. Unless for some reason your average commoner has put none of their skill points in their class skills, or who have intentionally avoided Craft or Profession or Handle Animal, then it's hard to imagine that said average commoner is all that poor off. About all they have is Craft and Profession and Handle Animal. All skills that would make it very easy to live an average lifestyle.

Sure. I'm just talking about untrained hirelings, those that either haven't got points in Craft or Profession (this happens so often in RL - people that can't be bothered or haven't had the opportunity to study or find tradesman's apprenticeships etc, and so do crappy underpaid labour work), or that do have those skills but can't find work in that area (not covered in the rules, but if the village blacksmith already has an apprentice, he just won't take another). I tend to run NPCs like robots sometimes for expedieny's sake, but if I was focusing on this stuff I'd run them just like real people, and in RL not everyone chooses good decisions like making sure their "skill points" are spent wisely on "class skills" like Craft and Profession. Humans are humans, and are very capable of making bad life choices.

These rules are more like abstract guidelines, and should be altered by the story or setting, eg if a PC wanted to use Craft (smithing) in a village that already has a smith, I'd put a hefty penalty on that roll, unless the smith had need of a partner to catch up on backorders etc.

Regardless, I agree that most commoners would have a skill, and would be in the average bracket, however I wouldn't assume they're the vast majority. Probably just a marginal majority. I think there should still be plenty of 1sp/day commoners out there, even if there are more average ones.

Also, I always assume there's a graduating continuum of incomes available, not just 1sp/day or jump to x gp/week. I'm sure there's untrained hirelings that do make 2-4sp a day, but let's face it, the PF devs have given us quick, simple rules by which we can largely ignore all of this. Going any deeper requires a bit of GM/group thinking, interpretation, and detailing.

And I certainly think the reality for most commoners is that if disaster strikes (back injury, disease etc) that they would be very close to the brink of dropping down a lifestyle bracket, be they average or poor. That's medieval life for ya.

But as I said, I think this stuff is certainly intended to be interpreted and developed by each group if they want to focus on this stuff. I think your ideas are certainly valid, and if you were my GM you wouldn't hear a peep out of me arguing any of your points. But I see it a bit differently, is all.

Edited for extra points about people making bad RL decisions.


Ashiel wrote:


EDIT: Then there's a wonder exactly how you have a commoner that can't ply a profession or craft. Unless for some reason your average commoner has put none of their skill points in their class skills, or who have intentionally avoided Craft or Profession or Handle Animal, then it's hard to imagine that said average commoner is all that poor off. About all they have is Craft and Profession and Handle Animal. All skills that would make it very easy to live an average lifestyle.

Well the majority of commoners are level 1, are they not? And they only get 2 + Int skills, so even with their 4-5 ish points in a Craft/Profession/Handle Animal they aren't making that much.

That's 28 gold per month on average, yes, but how much of that is left over to be spent on luxuries?


Rynjin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


EDIT: Then there's a wonder exactly how you have a commoner that can't ply a profession or craft. Unless for some reason your average commoner has put none of their skill points in their class skills, or who have intentionally avoided Craft or Profession or Handle Animal, then it's hard to imagine that said average commoner is all that poor off. About all they have is Craft and Profession and Handle Animal. All skills that would make it very easy to live an average lifestyle.
Well the majority of commoners are level 1, are they not? And they only get 2 + Int skills, so even with their 4-5 ish points in a Craft/Profession/Handle Animal they aren't making that much.

Like I said above, I suppose I see it more like RL, where plenty of people don't necessarily make optimal life choices - just because Commoners only have 3 class skills, doesn't mean they've put either of their 2 (or 3 if they're uncommonly smart for a Commoner) points into those skills. Derek the Delinquent Commoner might have an Int of 9, and put his skill point into Bluff, because he's a liar and a self-promoting loser - never met one of those in RL? I have :)

And what does Derek do? He sweeps out the granary, or unloads merchant wagons, for 1sp/day. And gods help him if his back goes...

But like I said, this only my take on it, and I don't actually think anyone else's ideas here are invalid :)


Yeah I agree with the bad real-life decisions thing. I just think that is probably a big minority. I mean, using the average rural farmers as an example, I'm pretty sure most skills get passed down. I still have a hard time imagining that such destitution is so common, especially given the state of a fantasy world do to magic and various ecological influences.

At the end of the day, D&D =! our world in Medieval times. It could, but that doesn't seem to be the general expectation. Which is why I support the idea that the average sort of commoner uses the rules as everyone else does, and does what they can to survive, even if that's just being a wood cutter or making charcoal or something (which isn't hard to do I might add) or painting, or otherwise either having 1 rank in a Profession skill or making untrained craft checks; and then modifying the whole of it with campaign specific modifiers, as I mentioned before.

Because I find it much easier to begin with the average and tweak up or down, rather than beginning with the absolute least you could do as the basis for typical people, because that only complicates matters when you try to adjust for positive or negative circumstances. For example, it's very easy to say that because the evil druids are using control weather to screw with the productivity of a nation they're trying to extort that the whole nation effectively has a -4 circumstance penalty to their Craft and Profession checks (representing the negative influence on the cost of doing business things like food prices rise which causes penalties on the overall the nation), which is a lot easier to deal with beginning with the average, rather than assuming the average person is actually a poor person and is now dead.

I rather like the ability to assume that if everything is going happy and cheery then things are doing pretty well. Not great, but decent. Then I can be the malevolent overlord called circumstances and turn the dials until either all the little commoner vermin scream with anguish for the fact that business sucks and Pa had to sell the farm and mom died of the bubonic plague and our sister got married off so we wouldn't starve, or turn it the other way and watch as people rejoice as even the lower classes aren't super doomed to starvation and the middle class is nice and doing well. Well enough to garner the attention of that dragon. Oh damnit, time to turn the dial back down...


Well I think the problem we're both having here is assuming it's either the 7 gold/day average of the silver/day average.

Personally I'd assume the average person makes between 1 and 3 gold a day. That's enough to buy them a decent meal and a mug of ale, with plenty of pocket change left over, and the Craftier of the commoners makes more because those points in a skill represent years of training in that skill with a smattering of natural aptitude and hand-me-down knowledge and resources.


If you think that the average farmer earns 3 gold a week, and then the average baker also earns 3 gold a week, then how is it that a loaf of bread costs only 2 copper? Just to break even on your labor costs, assuming that the about half of the cost comes from the wheat, that assistant baker you hired has to be able to make a loaf of bread every 6 minutes or something like that. I just don't see how that could possibly work, unless someone's managed to re-create mass production and the industrial revolution using magic (and then we're back to it being steampunk, lol.)

Or, for another example: an entire peasant's outfit only costs 1 silver. How long do you think that takes to make? How many outfits do you think the average peasant can afford?

I really just think that the amount of money listed under professions and crafting was just there in order to balance for PC's in terms of other skills a PC could have gotten and other ways a PC could be spending his time. It doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of economy.

By the way, the 1 SP/day is just for people with no skills. (And while it doesn't say it, your average maid is likely getting room and board for free, so the 1 SP/day is on top of that.) Someone with relevant skills earns 3 SP/day as a hireling. That's probably where most people are. Food costs about 1 silver a day (for "poor meals", aka peasant food), and that's probably your biggest cost, so you can get by on 3 silvers a day. (Also, that 1 silver/day is the cost for an adventurer who is just passing through town and has to buy his food pre-prepared every day; someone who lives there and can cook their own food at home is presumably paying less.)

It's likely someone who with his own farm or own blacksmith's forge can earn more then a hireling, especially since they probably hire hirelings to work for them (especially around harvest time for a farmer). Maybe they're getting closer to the 3 gold/week you're talking about.


Yosarian, Bakeries are quite capable of cooking more than one loaf of bread at a time. If the Baker can afford to sell bread for 2 coppers that means the wheat is likely much MUCH cheaper than that. Then you factor in average village/neighborhood size being only around 100-150 people and it's not so far fetched.


Rynjin wrote:

Well I think the problem we're both having here is assuming it's either the 7 gold/day average of the silver/day average.

Personally I'd assume the average person makes between 1 and 3 gold a day. That's enough to buy them a decent meal and a mug of ale, with plenty of pocket change left over, and the Craftier of the commoners makes more because those points in a skill represent years of training in that skill with a smattering of natural aptitude and hand-me-down knowledge and resources.

Well generally I think the average person makes less than 7. A +0 modifier to the skill only results in a 5 gp / week, which is only about 7 silver pieces per day (this is the value that you get when you are making untrained Craft checks or trained Profession checks with a +0 modifier). A character with a penalty (such as a negative Intelligence or Wisdom) can pull less.

Yosarian wrote:
If you think that the average farmer earns 3 gold a week, and then the average baker also earns 3 gold a week, then how is it that a loaf of bread costs only 2 copper? Just to break even on your labor costs, assuming that the about half of the cost comes from the wheat, that assistant baker you hired has to be able to make a loaf of bread every 6 minutes or something like that. I just don't see how that could possibly work, unless someone's managed to re-create mass production and the industrial revolution using magic (and then we're back to it being steampunk, lol.)

Bakaries bake lots of loafs of bread at once, with no industrialization needed. You're also assuming just pain bread. You also have to get into things like spiced breads, cakes, pastries, and all kinds of other things. A single load of plain bread is just 2 coppers. It's food. It's edible. It's...well I freaking love bread so I'd probably be happy but I'm easy to please. I think it's a bit odd to assume that a bakery is only going to make and sell plain bread and only plain bread.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
I swear to god, I will turn this forum around and head back to WoTC if you kids don't stop squabbling over this.

You're not my real dad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

Does a commoner not use the Climb skill to climb?

Does a commoner not use the Swim skill to climb?
Does a commoner not use the Linguistics skill to learn languages?
Does a commoner not use the Acrobatics skill to balance and jump?

For the most part, the answer is no they don't. Commoners live... common lives. They don't swim sewers or rivers to escape or hunt down monsters they don't get vacations on the Riviera, they generally don't travel outside their hamlets, and they rarely are in a position where they have to cross a narrow ledge.

It's that lifestyle which differentiates them from adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Does a commoner not use the Climb skill to climb?

Does a commoner not use the Swim skill to climb?
Does a commoner not use the Linguistics skill to learn languages?
Does a commoner not use the Acrobatics skill to balance and jump?

For the most part, the answer is no they don't. Commoners live... common lives. They don't swim sewers or rivers to escape or hunt down monsters they don't get vacations on the Riviera, they generally don't travel outside their hamlets, and they rarely are in a position where they have to cross a narrow ledge.

It's that lifestyle which differentiates them from adventurers.

What an amazingly sheltered life you must have liven. I've climbed trees (I'm not good at it, my sister was better). I know how to Swim and do pretty good. I have two friends who learned Spanish over the past year or so. I've taken dance classes, and as a child I balanced on logs, or boards, or the edges of stumps to see if I could. I was pretty sure almost everyone ever has jumped.

What exactly, pray tell, are commoners actually capable of doing in your games? Can they even breathe?


Ashiel wrote:
I rather like the ability to assume that if everything is going happy and cheery then things are doing pretty well. Not great, but decent. Then I can be the malevolent overlord called circumstances and turn the dials until either all the little commoner vermin scream with...

Yeah, I actually really like how Golarion also shares your view of a generally happy populace. I suppose my natural instinct is more of a George RR Martin perspective though :). It's actually really just a question of the flavour you want to evoke in your setting.


littlehewy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I rather like the ability to assume that if everything is going happy and cheery then things are doing pretty well. Not great, but decent. Then I can be the malevolent overlord called circumstances and turn the dials until either all the little commoner vermin scream with...
Yeah, I actually really like how Golarion also shares your view of a generally happy populace. I suppose my natural instinct is more of a George RR Martin perspective though :). It's actually really just a question of the flavour you want to evoke in your setting.

You can totally do that though. That's the beauty of how it is designed! :D

Like I said. You start with this nice middle ground (you'll notice this is common throughout the system to have a nice middle ground) and then you can dial forwards or backwards as you like. Just as an example, in my own campaign I have a country that is pretty affluent and their lives work out pretty darn good.

Nearby, one of their neighbors is governed in an entirely different manner, and their common citizens are most definitely not affluent at all. They're taxed more heavily and enjoy less social freedoms, and yet they're also made to believe (perhaps mild brainwashing via propaganda) that they are awesome for it (a lot of the heavier taxes are due to an increased emphasis on military "for the safety of the land", though they actually wanna go claim more lands soon).


Ashiel wrote:

What an amazingly sheltered life you must have liven. I've climbed trees (I'm not good at it, my sister was better). I know how to Swim and do pretty good. I have two friends who learned Spanish over the past year or so. I've taken dance classes, and as a child I balanced on logs, or boards, or the edges of stumps to see if I could. I was pretty sure almost everyone ever has jumped.

What exactly, pray tell, are commoners actually capable of doing in your games? Can they even breathe?

Climbing the type of trees you climbed as a kid doesn't require a skill check. Free-climbing a rock face does.

Balancing on logs or boards a few inches off the ground doesn't either, as there exists no real danger. Not to mention that balancing on a log is hardly proof of ranks in the skill. Even if it were a situation in which a skill check was required, you didn't make one. You defaulted to dex. To have ranks in the skill means you have an understanding of the skill (training), and can repeatedly perform at a given level of expertise. A Kid jumping and tumbling for fun does not an acrobat make.

Commoners in fantasy settings generally don't have the time to earn ranks in things like climb because their energy is spent working. The average commoner is also not going to have multiple languages (though this is very dependent on geography) because there is likely going to be one primary language spoken in the fields, and you don't learn languages by chatting up foreigners in a pub after a hard days' work. Commoners also don't get to take dance lessons, as anyone skilled enough to instruct is teaching the noble's kids for more than the commoner makes in a week.

Lastly, you are not a commoner by any measure. You have vastly more education and resources (in terms of time, money, and knowledge) to pursue learning important skills. Commoners simply don't know what they don't know. (They can't look in the player's guide and see that they would live much more fulfilling lives if they only took a few ranks of X)


Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yosarian wrote:

Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.

when you have a world that has had any exposure to magic whatsoever. the economy won't be medieval for very long.

the introduction of even one spellcaster, can produce more spellcasters, who can eventually rewrite the worlds economy pretty quickly.

and magic, creates the competitive spark required for rapid technological advancement.

if anything, magic is a highly empowered science that will make any nation that uses it, at least, the standard for first world, maybe even better than such.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Every time I see this thread bumped up in the sidebar I feel the urge to start a thread titled "Has Pathfinder given up on being hard sci-fi" complaining about all the fantasy elements that are still present and prevalent alongside the elements being complained about in this thread.

But then I worry that someone might actually seriously take up that argument.


Mikaze wrote:

Every time I see this thread bumped up in the sidebar I feel the urge to start a thread titled "Has Pathfinder given up on being hard sci-fi" complaining about all the fantasy elements that are still present and prevalent alongside the elements being complained about in this thread.

But then I worry that someone might actually seriously take up that argument.

Do it.

If anyone does take you seriously, I'll come in and immediately and passionately argue that Pathfinder is indeed a Sci-fi game.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Yosarian wrote:

Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.

when you have a world that has had any exposure to magic whatsoever. the economy won't be medieval for very long.

the introduction of even one spellcaster, can produce more spellcasters, who can eventually rewrite the worlds economy pretty quickly.

and magic, creates the competitive spark required for rapid technological advancement.

if anything, magic is a highly empowered science that will make any nation that uses it, at least, the standard for first world, maybe even better than such.

In theory, I would agree with much of that. But that only happens if magic has already completely re-written the economy of the whole world.

You could easily have a world where 90% of farmers have been replaced by people casting some Create Food and Water spell and the only farmers left sell fancy "organic food" to rich people, where crafting is done by magical assembly lines run by goloms, where all trading is done by telaporting or magical portals, and where the main weapon of warfare are weaponized and mass produced wands fitted with triggers and rifle sites, and it would look very much like the modern world. That would be a pretty good world for a roleplaying game, and frankly there's no reason you couldn't do most of that with standard wizard/cleric spells. However, that is not the world that pathfinder or D&D is set in.

In the pathfinder world, most economy is mostly done the old fashioned way. Blacksmiths make swords the old fashioned way, sell those swords to guards, who then use those swords to protect merchant caravans carrying trade goods by horse and wagon from bandits with bows and arrows. Food is mostly grown by farmers, either peasants or small freeholders. There is a large noble class in most countries, usually led by a royal family or an emperor, ect ect.

Now, there is enough magic to improve on some of this stuff (you can probably occasionally get a priest to cast control weather to break a drought, the caravan guard might have a +1 sword, health is probably better, ect) but that's just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. I'm sure that people in pathfinder worlds are a little better off then in medieval Europe because of that, but if they are running their economy on basally the same principles as medieval Europe, they will get basically the same results, magic or no magic.

(I will say this is part of the reason I find low-magic worlds more believable then high-magic worlds that somehow still seem to have a generic medieval economy, but that's a different discussion.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The White wrote:
After looking through some of the books (namely UM and UC), it has occurred to my group that PF has pretty much given up on being a fantasy game and just gone "screw it, let's go Steampunk". Especially after UC. I mean, just look at the picture of the Spellslinger Wizard... Not that this is a bad thing, just an observation and a thread to see if anyone else has noticed this and what people's thoughts are on it. Personally, I quite like it.

Steampunk IS fantasy.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Guns =/= steampunk
No but giant steam-powered robots are pretty much the definition of steampunk.

A certain obscure writer named William Gibson who wrote an equally trivial novel called "The Difference Engine" might disagree with you.

For my observations, Eberron is a lot closer to being steampunk than Golarion will ever be.

I have always called Eberron Magic-punk.


Up until the 1820s (Yes, that recently!) the number of farmers per city dweller was between 12:1 and 10:1. Cities grew on coasts and river fords not just because of ease of transportation, but because you only needed 8 fishermen to feed one townie.

Most trade was barter-driven.

One of the things that changed rapidly in the American Civil War was the McCormick Reaper, which changed the ratio for grain farming to about 4:1. This effectively added regiments to the Union army.

Farming was hard labor, and involved getting up with the sun and going to bed early. Every day of your life. Fishing for food is even harder work. The reason why most of the major festivals are in the winter time is because it's when you chose which animals to slaughter because you didn't have enough feed for them to make it through the winter, and thus you'd have a huge (for the time) meat surplus.

Golarion seems to assume that we're close to a minimum of the 1920s ratios - there's roughly 2 farmers for every 3 townfolk. (Right now, there's roughly one farmer for every 200 townfolk in the US.)


Yosarian wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Yosarian wrote:

Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.

when you have a world that has had any exposure to magic whatsoever. the economy won't be medieval for very long.

the introduction of even one spellcaster, can produce more spellcasters, who can eventually rewrite the worlds economy pretty quickly.

and magic, creates the competitive spark required for rapid technological advancement.

if anything, magic is a highly empowered science that will make any nation that uses it, at least, the standard for first world, maybe even better than such.

In theory, I would agree with much of that. But that only happens if magic has already completely re-written the economy of the whole world.

You could easily have a world where 90% of farmers have been replaced by people casting some Create Food and Water spell and the only farmers left sell fancy "organic food" to rich people, where crafting is done by magical assembly lines run by goloms, where all trading is done by telaporting or magical portals, and where the main weapon of warfare are weaponized and mass produced wands fitted with triggers and rifle sites, and it would look very much like the modern world. That would be a pretty good...

you don't even need that. here are a series of of examples of relatively low level or well known spells that could modify the world's economy, bring a country to a first world level of innovation, or drastically change how the world works

a 1st level acolyte can cast create water at will. a 1st level acolyte can provide enough water to sustain an entire desert metropolis. this makes farming anywhere easier. this alone makes food more affordable and easier to get. that alone would modify the economy.

that same first acolyte can provide affordable healing to a limited number of patients per day.

AoE damage spells, like fireball and burning hands, change how military combat formations are taught. these spells, are actually more advanced than real world weapons that provide the same effect. while an adventurer of someone with passive energy resistance would be less worried. the fireball or burning hands still frightens most human soldiers and positioning methods are taught. this changes how wars are fought. a sorcerer or evoker becomes a valuable and feared unit on the battlefield.

the light spell, and magic items such as the ioun torch, change the need for oil and lamps. the latter cost the same amount as a light horse, and provides a similar amount of utility in the homes that can afford it.

entangle, also helps battlefields, and reduces the chances a group of bandits have to escape. it would be a great security spell for stopping raids. druids may be expected to assist the city guard of their home region for a given time and may have to sign military contracts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Steampunk IS fantasy.

This. Not really much more to say on the topic honestly...


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Yosarian wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Yosarian wrote:

Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.

when you have a world that has had any exposure to magic whatsoever. the economy won't be medieval for very long.

the introduction of even one spellcaster, can produce more spellcasters, who can eventually rewrite the worlds economy pretty quickly.

and magic, creates the competitive spark required for rapid technological advancement.

if anything, magic is a highly empowered science that will make any nation that uses it, at least, the standard for first world, maybe even better than such.

In theory, I would agree with much of that. But that only happens if magic has already completely re-written the economy of the whole world.

You could easily have a world where 90% of farmers have been replaced by people casting some Create Food and Water spell and the only farmers left sell fancy "organic food" to rich people, where crafting is done by magical assembly lines run by goloms, where all trading is done by telaporting or magical portals, and where the main weapon of warfare are weaponized and mass produced wands fitted with triggers and rifle sites, and it would look very much like the modern world.

...

You mean adepts? They don't get unlimited level 0 spells.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

a 1st level acolyte can cast create water at will. a 1st level acolyte can provide enough water to sustain an entire desert metropolis. this makes farming anywhere easier. this alone makes food more affordable and easier to get. that alone would modify the economy.

that same first acolyte can provide affordable healing to a limited number of patients per day.

AoE damage spells, like fireball and burning hands, change how military combat formations are taught. these spells, are actually more advanced than real world weapons that provide the same effect. while an adventurer of someone with passive energy resistance would be less worried. the fireball or burning hands still frightens most human soldiers and positioning methods are taught. this changes how wars are fought. a sorcerer or evoker becomes a valuable and feared unit on the battlefield.

the light spell, and magic items such as the ioun torch, change the need for oil and lamps. the latter cost the same amount as a light horse, and provides a similar amount of utility in the homes that can afford it.

entangle, also helps battlefields, and reduces the chances a group of bandits have to escape. it would be a great security spell for stopping raids. druids may be expected to assist the city guard of their home region for a given time and may have to sign military contracts.

Mmm. The create water thing could make a difference, but I don't see it as being that different from the huge irrigation systems places like ancinet China and Egypt set up. Those were very significant, don't get me wrong, they raised the standard of living a lot, but not anywhere close to first world standards. And having an irrigation ditch is probably more efficient then having clerics with class levels spend hours and hours wandering the fields casting cantips over and over again.

Again; I do think that a world with pathfinder-level magic is going to be better off then a medieval world, but so long as most things are still produced in the medieval way and traded in the medieval way, it's not going to be that different. Even with good water supplies and an occasional spell to make the land more fertile, farming by "getting your mule to pull a plow" is just incredibly labor intensive, and just doesn't produce that big of a food surplus.

Now, like I said, if you wanted to re-create a more modern type of farming where you have magic-powered farm machinery, then it's a different story.


I am shocked -- shocked -- to find a broken economy in a roleplaying game.

Are there any that get this right? Maybe level-less games with really flat skill curves?

Okay. The economy makes about as much sense as the soldiers in chess being unable to retreat while towers can.

The original subject was about firearms and steampunk.

Can we agree that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is fantasy? Right? Even those who think it's unreadable it agree that it's fantasy.

Guess what. It has gunpowder. That scene from the movie with the orcish sappers bringing a bomb under the wall at Helm's Deep? That's not one of Peter Jackson's fabrications.

The early descriptions of the Numenorian exile kingdoms associated with the abortive Lost Road include air ships. The original Fall of Gondolin was pretty steam punk as well.

Of course anything built off of medieval mysticism is ultimately built off of Greek thinking. They had steam engines and mechanical computers. That would include things set in a fantastical version of the real world after the high point of the Greek empire. Like, say Conan.

You can try to preserve the purity of the genre, but the genre is about as pure as the English language.


Most steampunk books I've read haven't been fantasy at all. I'd generally put them into either "soft science fiction" genre or the "alternate history" genre, depending on the book. Fantasy books set in Victorian times are cool too, but they're not really steampunk.

I also do think it's reasonable to say that some steampunk elements have been creeping in to recent Pathfinder releases. Both the alchemist class and the gunslinger are more steampunk. (At least the way Pathfinder does the alchemist, which is basically a cross between "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and "Early 20th century chemist".) I don't have a problem with that; it's not like D&D has ever been pure medieval fantasy (hey, I know I'm not the only one who still has the old spelljammer campaign setting books, lol, and the Mind Flayer is clearly a 1950's science fiction invader from another world).

I do think that it's pretty clear that they are based on the steampunk ascetic, and I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, the aesthetic of the alchemist, if one considers the affect of the alternative class features via Ultimate Magic, has a...shall we say, Cronenbergian and Lovecraftian, background.

I think Paizo has tapped deep into the mythos. Deep enough that it's time to venture into the more esoteric regions. How about more Moorcock? Arcadia is just crying for more content and there's the Skraeling Tree to consider! Go for it. Maybe Robert Howard and time travel? Y'all never know!


The trouble I have with Golarian and Pathfinder Adventure Paths isn't so much the tech level, as the modern sensibilities. When things like teenage runaways, single moms studying to go to college, asylums, modern attitudes towards colonialisms, etc. get mixed up in my fantasy games, I lose pretty much all sense of immersion. I'm not transported to another time. It's basically early 21st-century North America with fancy clothes and lots of spells.

I understand that Paizo is only following wider trends in pop and geek culture. As fantasy has become more popular, it has become more palatable to modern sensibilities by straining out any rough, primitive, or strange attitudes. But that's not my fantasy. When I'm playing (or reading) in a pre-modern setting, I expect pre-modern attitudes. For an innkeeper to behave like a modern person is as jarring to me as him riding up on a motorcycle.

This wasn't always the case in D&D. Read City State of the Invincible Overlord (Judges Guild 1976) and you're in a brutal, alien, weird setting. The effects of a world where monsters roam the hills and the demi-gods live in groves are evident - dread, squalor, superstition, arrogance, hostility.

I get that Pathfinder supports a kitchen-sink setting. And I get why. But I've had a real tough time finding a product that isn't rife with anachronistic, modern attitudes. I thought Serpent's Skull might fit the bill, but it's a 17th century pirates/conquistador story. I like my Sword and Sorcery more ancient Mediterranian meets Clark Ashton Smith. But there doesn't seem to be much market today for that sort of sensibility - in RPGs or fantasy fiction.


Haffrung wrote:

The trouble I have with Golarian and Pathfinder Adventure Paths isn't so much the tech level, as the modern sensibilities. When things like teenage runaways, single moms studying to go to college, asylums, modern attitudes towards colonialisms, etc. get mixed up in my fantasy games, I lose pretty much all sense of immersion. I'm not transported to another time. It's basically early 21st-century North America with fancy clothes and lots of spells.

I understand that Paizo is only following wider trends in pop and geek culture. As fantasy has become more popular, it has become more palatable to modern sensibilities by straining out any rough, primitive, or strange attitudes. But that's not my fantasy. When I'm playing (or reading) in a pre-modern setting, I expect pre-modern attitudes. For an innkeeper to behave like a modern person is as jarring to me as him riding up on a motorcycle.

This wasn't always the case in D&D. Read City State of the Invincible Overlord (Judges Guild 1976) and you're in a brutal, alien, weird setting. The effects of a world where monsters roam the hills and the demi-gods live in groves are evident - dread, squalor, superstition, arrogance, hostility.

I get that Pathfinder supports a kitchen-sink setting. And I get why. But I've had a real tough time finding a product that isn't rife with anachronistic, modern attitudes. I thought Serpent's Skull might fit the bill, but it's a 17th century pirates/conquistador story. I like my Sword and Sorcery more ancient Mediterranian meets Clark Ashton Smith. But there doesn't seem to be much market today for that sort of sensibility - in RPGs or fantasy fiction.

Personally, I like that. Nothing jars me out of interest in something more than stilted, archaic dialogue.

Weird? Maybe. But I like when something is "honest" about its fiction. D&D always seemed like it was trying too hard to me.

Note, this is just my personal opinion, and I can understand where you're coming from here.


Haffrung wrote:

The trouble I have with Golarian and Pathfinder Adventure Paths isn't so much the tech level, as the modern sensibilities. When things like teenage runaways, single moms studying to go to college, asylums, modern attitudes towards colonialisms, etc. get mixed up in my fantasy games, I lose pretty much all sense of immersion. I'm not transported to another time. It's basically early 21st-century North America with fancy clothes and lots of spells.

Nothing new about teenage runaways or single moms (don't know about about the studying). I suppose single moms might have more often been, or pretended to be widows.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I love having the gunslinger and related options.

My current campaign is Ravenloft, which is a little higher tech than standard fantasy having a dash of Renaissance and Victorian flavour, so guns are really a must. How else can you kill a werewolf except with a silver bullet? ;)


Using the content of the rules books to correlate the direction of fantasy gaming is faulty logic. Assuming Paizo has a "direction" and they are leading the imaginations of it's customers is equally faulty. Paizo's rules are not causal of the "evolved" fantasy we see in gaming these days.

I wonder if the OP wears tin foil on his head.

Paizo produces books that contain rules for any and all situations that may come up in someone's fantasies. By spreading out and covering all bases, they intend to capture the widest audience possible.

Gamers decide the content of games, not Paizo. Looking to the rules books to get ideas for games indicates a lacking imagination in my opinion. Gamers by design should already be fantasy lovers, which means they may have read a book or two along the way.

The real cause of all this Sci-Fi, Steampunk, technology, aliens, guns, and awesomeness in general is the evolvement of people's imaginations. It's us that's changing, Paizo along with everyone else.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Yosarian wrote:

Hey, it's your fantasy world, you can design it any way you want

Personally, though, I just have trouble believing that the average person able to get by only spending 10%-20% of their income on food, even if they cook nothing themselves and buy everything pre-prepared, or that they have something like 60% of what they earn as disposable income. That's possible for a middle class person in a first world country today, but no one on Earth lived like that before about the middle of the twentieth century, and most people don't live like that today.

If you have super-high-magic "crystal towers and togas" type world where it's basically a modern first world country except with high tech replaced by ubiquitous and uber-powerful magic, then it makes sense, but short of that, I just don't see it.

when you have a world that has had any exposure to magic whatsoever. the economy won't be medieval for very long.

the introduction of even one spellcaster, can produce more spellcasters, who can eventually rewrite the worlds economy pretty quickly.

and magic, creates the competitive spark required for rapid technological advancement.

if anything, magic is a highly empowered science that will make any nation that uses it, at least, the standard for first world, maybe even better than such.

That's your interpretation of the world behind the game rules, not neccessarily the only one.

In most tales about magic, Master mages frequently travel far and wide to find an apprentice to teach as most mortals simply do not have the inherent talent for the "Gift". The average commoner simply does not have that spark of heroism that distinguishes an adventurer, or every player character.

It is more than equally arguable that magic is an art, to wield it effectively whether arcane or divine, you must have the inherent talent to do so. Player characters have it by default.


My problem with including tech such as guns and cannons is thus: Where does one stop? Eventually someone is going to develop flying machines and/or tanks and start invading "Poland". Is magic greater than technology? What happens when you mix the two and war wizards are lobbing mortar shells with maximized fireballs attached to them? Maybe it is just me. I have never cared for guns in my dnd offshoots. My friends and I have had many discussions on such issues. The thing is: If you don't want it, it doesn't exist. Frankly I feel there are many things that could be streamlined, or changed. But, over all, Paizo has done a fabulous job of bringing us a world where we can all have some much needed escapes from reality.
I am waiting for them to develop the other parts of the world. The map in the Skull and Shackkles campaign that shows the entire earth shows us parts that we know nothing about. For all we know there are vast cities of tech. But I do have to agree with the original post for this thread. Yes, in my opinion, Paizo is breaking from traditional fantasy and heading more steampunk.
Oh yeah, and one more little rant: To the people at Paizo: Please stop focusing on Varisia. There is a whole world out there! Stop taking us back to your first country.


Fantasy is very subjective. Harry Potter is fantasy. Tolkien is fantasy. Jordan's Wheel of Time is fantasy. Conan is fantasy. Heck Star Wars is fantasy. There's a lot of room there.

RPG's diverged from literary fantasy before 1980, when Gygax ran games where Sir Robilar fought mixed groups of Orcs and SS Panzer Grenadiers. Level 11 characters break most classical fantasy tropes. By definition all RPGs deconstruct all fantasy and scifi genres to some form. RPGs leave very little in the realm of impossible beyond GM fiat.
The most fantastic of genre's have Certain Internal Laws that are Absolutes. RPGs do not. When Death, Time and Space, Gravity and Biology are no longer subject to some form of Natural Law or at least an internal consistency it becomes difficult to reconcile a game with a genre. There is a mutation of borrowed concepts.

RPGs (in all of their weird variations) borrow from multiple sources. Even the most strident Fantasy Purist GM incorporates a little Horror and Action into the game. That long ago left me at the conclusion;
RPGS ARE THEIR OWN GENRE.

We can pretend otherwise buts it's about as useful as arguing basic math.


Gaekub wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Every time I see this thread bumped up in the sidebar I feel the urge to start a thread titled "Has Pathfinder given up on being hard sci-fi" complaining about all the fantasy elements that are still present and prevalent alongside the elements being complained about in this thread.

But then I worry that someone might actually seriously take up that argument.

Do it.

If anyone does take you seriously, I'll come in and immediately and passionately argue that Pathfinder is indeed a Sci-fi game.

Orson Scott Card once said that the difference between fantasy and SciFi is what's on the cover. If you see trees, it's fantasy, if you see rivets, it's SciFi.


Jodokai wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Every time I see this thread bumped up in the sidebar I feel the urge to start a thread titled "Has Pathfinder given up on being hard sci-fi" complaining about all the fantasy elements that are still present and prevalent alongside the elements being complained about in this thread.

But then I worry that someone might actually seriously take up that argument.

Do it.

If anyone does take you seriously, I'll come in and immediately and passionately argue that Pathfinder is indeed a Sci-fi game.

Orson Scott Card once said that the difference between fantasy and SciFi is what's on the cover. If you see trees, it's fantasy, if you see rivets, it's SciFi.

What happens if you see trees and rivets?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:


Jodokai wrote:


Gaekub wrote:


Mikaze wrote:

Every time I see this thread bumped up in the sidebar I feel the urge to start a thread titled "Has Pathfinder given up on being hard sci-fi" complaining about all the fantasy elements that are still present and prevalent alongside the elements being complained about in this thread.

But then I worry that someone might actually seriously take up that argument.

Do it.

If anyone does take you seriously, I'll come in and immediately and passionately argue that Pathfinder is indeed a Sci-fi game.

Orson Scott Card once said that the difference between fantasy and SciFi is what's on the cover. If you see trees, it's fantasy, if you see rivets, it's SciFi.

What happens if you see trees and rivets?

Science-Fantasy :D


And then we all win!

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've already won.

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Has Pathfinder given up on being fantasy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.